Thats not reality but this is

Sep 21, 2005

In the stakes of who's images represent the truth there is no honesty coming from the proponents of the terminal as this image indicates. Recent images publsihed in the Bulletin showed the ship without the terminal - is that reality?

Perhaps the passengers were going to dive off the boat.

Does the Bulletin have information we are not privy to? It was based on information that we had on hand at that time, if the bulletin had further inside information that we have no access to, then where is the honest open debate about this?

Our reprentation is a PREDICTION of what becomes of expansion - check what happened to Fort Lauderdale on our home page.

We did appreciate a recent image depicting a split in the community - now that is reality.

The problem is however - the people who are for the terminal and consequent loss of public open space are generally not the ones who visit or gain an income from the area now.

Most surfers, divers, fishermen beach goers, nature lovers and lovers in general do not want to hand over thier area to developers to gain 6 cleaning jobs for the local economy.

A recent letter sent to the Bulletin.

So much talk about a little picture. Let's compare them shall we? The picture that the Bulletin placed along side the "Gecko" picture with the caption " reality as seen by the Gold Coast Bulletin" does not depict any infrastructure at all, not even a terminal.( page 6, sept. 16th)
Your statement on the same page that " Ms Bligh said the proposal was gaining support from the dive industry" is a little naughty as well wouldn't you agree?
For the last year, on behalf of the diving industry on the Gold Coast, I have been involved with many delegations, trying to get to the bare facts and find out exactly what impact a cruise terminal will have on my industry. So far, no information has been forthcoming.
You can imagine my surprise when I read your statement in last Fridays paper. Ms Blighs office was quite surprised as well and I received a phone call from them to assure me that Ms Bligh had not assumed anything of the sort.
I also keep hearing that "modern day cruise liners must comply with strict covenants contained in the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from ships" . That's all well and good, but how will this be policed? What do we do if one of the ships has an accident or deliberately flouts those laws?
We also need to consider the difference between the Seaway - still clean and user friendly - and the areas where cruise ship terminals are generally built - in exsisting Ports which you wouldn't swim, dive or fish in for quids.
All anybody really wants is to be kept informed and to make sure that the whole process is transparent and that the impact of a Cruise Terminal on all parts of the community is fully considered BEFORE any decisions are made.
Shona Pinkerton
Southport